Cases

(2008) Robert MOORE, Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 07-10283. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. February 28, 2008. OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [25] NANCY G. EDMUNDS, District Judge. Plaintiff Robert Moore filed this negligence action after he was struck in th

OPINION PER CURIAM: Mary Ann Verdugo was shopping with her mother and brother in a Pico Rivera, California, Target when she experienced sudden cardiac arrest. There was no Automatic External Defibrillator (“AED”) in the store, and by the time paramedics arrived, Verdugo had died. Verdugo’s family sued Target, alleging that as a commercial property owner, Target had a common law duty to maintain an AED

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEXANDER PANELLI, No. 24-6640 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:24-cv-01218-H- DEB v. TARGET CORPORATION, OPINION Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Distr

PER CURIAM. Target Corporation (“Target”) appeals from a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court (“the trial court”) dismissing Target’s appeal of final ad valorem tax assessments made by the Jefferson County Board of Equalization (“the Board”). We hold that Target did not comply with the requirements to perfect an appeal and, therefore, that the trial court properly dismissed Target’s appeal. This cas

Affirmed in Part, Reversed and Rendered in Part, and Reversed and Remanded in Part, and Opinion filed November 23, 2021. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-20-00125-CV TARGET CORPORATION, Appellant V. D&H PROPERTIES, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 11th District Court

LIU, J., Dissenting.—Whether Target may charge sales tax on a cup of coffee is probably not the most gripping issue before the California Supreme Court this term. But this is not really a tax case. This is a case about the reach of consumer protection statutes that prohibit unfair business practices, including misrepresentations by a retailer as to what its customers are actually paying for. Today’s decision weakens those statute

MAIN, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur in the main opinion’s conclusion that the judgment appealed from was a final judgment and in its affirmance of the trial court’s order denying Target Media’s postjudgment motion for a judgment as a matter of law (“JML”) as to Specialty Marketing Corporation’s breach-of-contract claim. However, I respectfully d

457 Mass. 368 (2010) EMANUEL PAPADOPOULOS & another[1] v. TARGET CORPORATION[2] & another.[3] SJC-10529. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk. February 8, 2010. July 26, 2010. Present: MARSHALL, C.J., IRELAND, SPINA, COWIN, CORDY, BOTSFORD, & GANTS, JJ. Emmanuel N. Papanickolas (

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL VERDUGO, brother of No. 10-57008 Decedent; ROSEMARY VERDUGO, mother, successor and heir of Mary D.C. No. Ann Verdugo, Decedent, 2:10-cv-06930- Plaintiffs-Appellants, ODW-AJW v. OPINION TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

NEWSOM, Circuit Judge, concurring: I concur in the Court’s, judgment and join its opinion. I write separately only to underscore two points—one small, the other less so. As for the former, I believe, for reasons I will explain briefly, that the governing Supreme Court precedent—Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 12

No. 354 April 23, 2025 21 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Patricia ANSELMO, as Personal Representative for the Estate of Jeffrey Buckmeyer, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TARGET COPORATION and Marketsource, Inc., Defendants-Respondents,

Filed 9/19/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO DAVID SALAZAR, Plaintiff and Appellant, E076001 v. (Super. Ct. No. CIVDS1919405) TARGET CORPORATION, OPINION Defendant and Respondent

No. 354 April 23, 2025 21 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Patricia ANSELMO, as Personal Representative for the Estate of Jeffrey Buckmeyer, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TARGET COPORATION and Marketsource, Inc., Defendants-Respondents,

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) HYER V. TARGET CORP. NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E). SHARON L. HYER, APPELLANT, V.

357 F.3d 768 Jeffrey S. AARON, an individual residing in Florida, as the trustee of a New York revocable trust, Sylvia H. Aaron; ADTAR, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company; Hampton Village Associates, L.L.C., a New York limited liability company and successor-in-interest to the Estate of Louis Feil, Plaintiffs/Appellees,v.TARGET CORPORATION, formerly known as Target Stores, Inc., formerly known as Dayton Hudson Corporation, a Minne

This opinion is subject to revision before final publication in the Pacific Reporter 2020 UT 10 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Petitioner, v. TARGET CORPORATION and WEINGARTEN/MILLER/AMERICAN FORK, LLC, Res

Dillard, Judge. In these companion cases, Charlotte and Micah Green and Target Corporation appeal from a verdict in which the jury concluded that the Greens and Target conspired to convey a piece of real property with the intent of defrauding Kennon Amerson d/b/a South Coast Builders and South Georgia Coast Builders, LLC (collectively, “Amerson”), a judgment creditor of the Greens. The Greens and Target assert that (1) Amers

*1142ORDER RICHARD H. KYLE, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Certification of a Settlement Class and Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement (Doc. No. 83). For the reasons that follow, the Motion will be denied. Plaintiffs Jonathan Small and Jotmar, Inc. (“Jotmar”), a p

Richard W. Goldberg, Senior Judge Plaintiff Target General Merchandise, Inc. ("Target") has moved for summary judgment, Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 42 (Dec. 12, 2018), and the Government has responded with a cross-motion seeking the same, Def.'s Cross-Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 47 (Mar. 14, 2019). Upon importation, U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("Customs") classified the subject mer

OPINION AND ORDER TERENCE P. KEMP, United States Magistrate Judge. This employment discrimination case is before the Court to consider plaintiff Mark Grant’s renewed motion for leave to amend his complaint (Doc. # 29), defendant Target’s motion to compel discovery (Doc. # 30), Target’s motion to extend the discovery schedule (Doc. # 38), Target’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. #41), Target’s mo